PC Gaming: Constantly Advancing | Consoles: Locked into 'Generations'

PC gaming is constantly advancing, there has never been a trackable 'generation' of graphics on PC. With each iteration of the DirectX API and advancement in hardware/drivers PC games see a constant trickle of upgrades and leaps in fidelity.

This game would collapse a current console with the graphics set as they are on my PC.

With consoles, the gamers get ~5 years of seeing essentially the same graphics, so the contrast of a new 'generation' seems stark. On PC it is a slowly increasing level of graphical prowess. We aren't locked into generations on PC.

Ergo, it is a misnomer to suggest that PC gaming isn't leaps and 'generations' ahead of console. PC is at least 4 generations of graphical prowess newer than console.

SSAO

Tessalation

etc.

These all represent things the NEXT consoles will see, and console gamers will call that 'next-gen'.

So, while a game like Witcher 2 will release on console, it will be set to be 'generations' behind PC via the graphics options.

No light shafts, no cinematic DoF, no SSAO, etc.; these all represent generational leaps on console, and incremental steps on PC.

Console gaming = less confusing, easier to use, and cheaper hardware.

This is how it has always been and this is why the consoles have been popular. When a person sees a PC they don't see a gaming machine, they see a tool to access the internet, write documents, store music, maybe watch internet videos, and play some basic games. When somebody sees an Xbox 360 they see an easy-to-use and quite affordable gaming device.

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs. This is why the consoles are there. People don't want to mess with upgrades or anything, they want to put in the game and play. Simple and fun.

The reason I'm a fan of the PC platform is that it gives me options.

Console gaming = less confusing, easier to use, and cheaper hardware.

This is how it has always been and this is why the consoles have been popular. When a person sees a PC they don't see a gaming machine, they see a tool to access the internet, write documents, store music, maybe watch internet videos, and play some basic games. When somebody sees an Xbox 360 they see an easy-to-use and quite affordable gaming device.

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs. This is why the consoles are there. People don't want to mess with upgrades or anything, they want to put in the game and play. Simple and fun.

Wasdie

Now that I got that out of the way, to be more with your point, consoles being locked into generations has it's advantages for game developers. They don't have to worry about the many different hardware configurations of the PC, they don't have to worry about grpahical libraries being updated, and they don't have to worry about things like SLI or Crossfire.

They get their dev kits and work with those. Sure they get new dev kits from time to time but it's nothing like a whole new version of DX or even a whole new line of AMD GPUs that do something different than the previous line. This allows the developers to really get to know what the consoles are capable of and work within those constraints to make a very good game. THey also don't have to spend millions and millions on new graphics engines all of the time to take advantage of new features.

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs.

Wasdie

I had a friend who had been using nothing but computers bought by his parents in the past, and used Macs when he went to college, his macbook broke, out of warrenty, paid to get it fixed, broke again, so he decided to build a PC. It took him a while to research parts, but on his own, he built a fairly nice PC for a fairly cheap price. Big hassle is crap, if you can read, you can build a PC.

This is also true with any kind of game modding. Google can teach you how to do just about anything. It doesn't take a computer expert, it takes someone willing to learn or do a bit of research.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Console gaming = less confusing, easier to use, and cheaper hardware.

This is how it has always been and this is why the consoles have been popular. When a person sees a PC they don't see a gaming machine, they see a tool to access the internet, write documents, store music, maybe watch internet videos, and play some basic games. When somebody sees an Xbox 360 they see an easy-to-use and quite affordable gaming device.

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs. This is why the consoles are there. People don't want to mess with upgrades or anything, they want to put in the game and play. Simple and fun.

SajuukSW

The only problem I have with consoles is getting them working online. Thats when you hvae to deal with making an account, updating, and doing all of that. However if I buy a Wii or a 360 I can buy any game, put it into the console, and play. No worrying about my hardware specs, no need to install (can't say that for all PS3 games sadly), and I can sit back on my couch with my TV and play.

It's a different experiance aimed at a slightly different audience.

No relation to haberman are we?

Now that I got that out of the way, to be more with your point, consoles being locked into generations has it's advantages for game developers. They don't have to worry about the many different hardware configurations of the PC, they don't have to worry about grpahical libraries being updated, and they don't have to worry about things like SLI or Crossfire.

They get their dev kits and work with those. Sure they get new dev kits from time to time but it's nothing like a whole new version of DX or even a whole new line of AMD GPUs that do something different than the previous line. This allows the developers to really get to know what the consoles are capable of and work within those constraints to make a very good game. THey also don't have to spend millions and millions on new graphics engines all of the time to take advantage of new features.

Wasdie

That has a disadvantage as well. You're forgetting the fact that developers would have no intention of developing new engine. Someone like Crytek would just build 1 engine in 5 years and be content with it. It does not help gaming in the way you imagine.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs.

110million

I had a friend who had been using nothing but computers bought by his parents in the past, and used Macs when he went to college, his macbook broke, out of warrenty, paid to get it fixed, broke again, so he decided to build a PC. It took him a while to research parts, but on his own, he built a fairly nice PC for a fairly cheap price. Big hassle is crap, if you can read, you can build a PC.

This is also true with any kind of game modding. Google can teach you how to do just about anything. It doesn't take a computer expert, it takes someone willing to learn or do a bit of research.

You don't understand the mentality of most people. They aren't willing to google things for answers, they aren't will to even put together a PC, they aren't willing to learn.

PCs are a hassle because you use them for much more than gaming. Sure they aren't much for me, but I've been doing them forever and I enjoy messing with my computer. An average person wants things easy, isn't willing to learn, and will pay a bit extra for connivance.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Console gaming = less confusing, easier to use, and cheaper hardware.

This is how it has always been and this is why the consoles have been popular. When a person sees a PC they don't see a gaming machine, they see a tool to access the internet, write documents, store music, maybe watch internet videos, and play some basic games. When somebody sees an Xbox 360 they see an easy-to-use and quite affordable gaming device.

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs. This is why the consoles are there. People don't want to mess with upgrades or anything, they want to put in the game and play. Simple and fun.

Remmib

So what you're saying is, consoles are primarily for children? Precisely what I was thinking...

I know I mostly was a console gamer when I was much younger, but then when I started learning about PCs the choice was obvious.

Haberman, I mean Ehussein1379, you just don't know when to give up do you?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Console gaming = less confusing, easier to use, and cheaper hardware.

This is how it has always been and this is why the consoles have been popular. When a person sees a PC they don't see a gaming machine, they see a tool to access the internet, write documents, store music, maybe watch internet videos, and play some basic games. When somebody sees an Xbox 360 they see an easy-to-use and quite affordable gaming device.

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs. This is why the consoles are there. People don't want to mess with upgrades or anything, they want to put in the game and play. Simple and fun.

Remmib

So what you're saying is, consoles are primarily for children? Precisely what I was thinking...

I know I mostly was a console gamer when I was much younger, but then when I started learning about PCs the choice was obvious.

What so something being easy to use automatically means that its for children that seriously makes about as much sense as Yahtzee's rants.

Some people dont have a techie mind like yourself either so saying oh b-b-b-b-ut once you learn its an obvious choice.Newsflash theres diffrent out comes for diffrent people.

I like my consoles pure and simple, for many a reason i had the choice between a nice Fender Precision or a PC and i chose the Precision and i would easily do it again regardless.A console for say 5-6 years is about £250 (for my PS3 anyway) and i got my 360 cause i got a good bonus and overtime at Christmas otherwise i wouldnt have one of those either but i kinda had a taste for Forza and Halo (360 cost £200 w Fable 3 and i got Forza 3 for a tenner).

Which would be relevant if we were talking about something a bit bigger than just graphics.

I mean, sure, graphics are nice and all, but I'm not paying additional $500+ just to play a nicer version of the exact same game.

Also, there will never be a point in the future where everybody will play exclusively on the PC. So I don't see the point of these threads.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Now that I got that out of the way, to be more with your point, consoles being locked into generations has it's advantages for game developers. They don't have to worry about the many different hardware configurations of the PC, they don't have to worry about grpahical libraries being updated, and they don't have to worry about things like SLI or Crossfire.

They get their dev kits and work with those. Sure they get new dev kits from time to time but it's nothing like a whole new version of DX or even a whole new line of AMD GPUs that do something different than the previous line. This allows the developers to really get to know what the consoles are capable of and work within those constraints to make a very good game. THey also don't have to spend millions and millions on new graphics engines all of the time to take advantage of new features.

harshv82

That has a disadvantage as well. You're forgetting the fact that developers would have no intention of developing new engine. Someone like Crytek would just build 1 engine in 5 years and be content with it. It does not help gaming in the way you imagine.

that saves time which means cash, which essentially means a bigger budget for games :S also it means developers can earn back much in the same vein of epic and still constantly progress with newer incremenntal updates to said engine :S

Also engine's do NOT dictate gameplay either thats a devs duty hell mend a company if they want to be a one trick pony. Engines, they are only essentially frameworks for powering the game and making the game.

PCs are a hassle because you use them for much more than gaming. Sure they aren't much for me, but I've been doing them forever and I enjoy messing with my computer. An average person wants things easy, isn't willing to learn, and will pay a bit extra for connivance.

Wasdie

Fair enough, though in general your post did not have much to do with the topic. TC pointed out that PCs evolve and are not tied to generations the same way consoles are. Consoles are obviously less hassle if all you want to do is game, but laziness and willful ignorance are pretty bad excuses as to why someone would not care to build a PC.

[QUOTE="110million"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Sure the PC's can do everything a console can, but usually that adds a big hassle for anybody who's not extremely knowledgeable about PCs.

AncientDozer

I had a friend who had been using nothing but computers bought by his parents in the past, and used Macs when he went to college, his macbook broke, out of warrenty, paid to get it fixed, broke again, so he decided to build a PC. It took him a while to research parts, but on his own, he built a fairly nice PC for a fairly cheap price. Big hassle is crap, if you can read, you can build a PC.

This is also true with any kind of game modding. Google can teach you how to do just about anything. It doesn't take a computer expert, it takes someone willing to learn or do a bit of research.

Agreed WASDIE, no dispute there.

From a discussion of what is a 'generation' however the consoles are literally locked into ~5 year cycles whereas PC constantly evolves.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Now that I got that out of the way, to be more with your point, consoles being locked into generations has it's advantages for game developers. They don't have to worry about the many different hardware configurations of the PC, they don't have to worry about grpahical libraries being updated, and they don't have to worry about things like SLI or Crossfire.

They get their dev kits and work with those. Sure they get new dev kits from time to time but it's nothing like a whole new version of DX or even a whole new line of AMD GPUs that do something different than the previous line. This allows the developers to really get to know what the consoles are capable of and work within those constraints to make a very good game. THey also don't have to spend millions and millions on new graphics engines all of the time to take advantage of new features.

harshv82

That has a disadvantage as well. You're forgetting the fact that developers would have no intention of developing new engine. Someone like Crytek would just build 1 engine in 5 years and be content with it. It does not help gaming in the way you imagine.

Sure it has advantages and disadvantages. You also forget to add in the consumer element. People don't want to keep playing the same graphics for 5 years in a row. They demand better graphics. As long as the demand is there, people will make advances in graphics.

Like it or not, CoD has also increased it's graphic quality from CoD 4 - Black Ops. It's not as noticable as BFBC2 to BF3, but it's their. Also one of the biggest complaints I heard from CoD fans about Black Ops was it's graphics weren't that much improved over MW2.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

PCs are a hassle because you use them for much more than gaming. Sure they aren't much for me, but I've been doing them forever and I enjoy messing with my computer. An average person wants things easy, isn't willing to learn, and will pay a bit extra for connivance.

110million

Fair enough, though in general your post did not have much to do with the topic. TC pointed out that PCs evolve and are not tied to generations the same way consoles are. Consoles are obviously less hassle if all you want to do is game, but laziness and willful ignorance are pretty bad excuses as to why someone would not care to build a PC.

Price, ease of use, and that most 10 year olds aren't too willing to scour the internet to figure out why, say, their monitor won't display its native resolution or find out where to find the latest drivers for hardware piece X. Hell, I hate having to look and probe as to why one thing has, for whatever reason, not functioned today like it did yesterday/last week.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

PCs are a hassle because you use them for much more than gaming. Sure they aren't much for me, but I've been doing them forever and I enjoy messing with my computer. An average person wants things easy, isn't willing to learn, and will pay a bit extra for connivance.

110million

Fair enough, though in general your post did not have much to do with the topic. TC pointed out that PCs evolve and are not tied to generations the same way consoles are. Consoles are obviously less hassle if all you want to do is game, but laziness and willful ignorance are pretty bad excuses as to why someone would not care to build a PC.

Those aren't bad excuses at all. In a consumer market those are some of the biggest things we have to address. You can never expect your consumer to go out of their way for your product ever.

[QUOTE="harshv82"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Now that I got that out of the way, to be more with your point, consoles being locked into generations has it's advantages for game developers. They don't have to worry about the many different hardware configurations of the PC, they don't have to worry about grpahical libraries being updated, and they don't have to worry about things like SLI or Crossfire.

They get their dev kits and work with those. Sure they get new dev kits from time to time but it's nothing like a whole new version of DX or even a whole new line of AMD GPUs that do something different than the previous line. This allows the developers to really get to know what the consoles are capable of and work within those constraints to make a very good game. THey also don't have to spend millions and millions on new graphics engines all of the time to take advantage of new features.

That has a disadvantage as well. You're forgetting the fact that developers would have no intention of developing new engine. Someone like Crytek would just build 1 engine in 5 years and be content with it. It does not help gaming in the way you imagine.

that saves time which means cash, which essentially means a bigger budget for games :S also it means developers can earn back much in the same vein of epic and still constantly progress with newer incremenntal updates to said engine :S

Also engine's do NOT dictate gameplay either thats a devs duty hell mend a company if they want to be a one trick pony. Engines, they are only essentially frameworks for powering the game and making the game.

devote hours in to researching the best parts/combinations. Then comes the physical aspect of building the PC....I don't particularly want to construct it myself - not just through laziness either.Ravensmash

This is basically a myth. A friend once asked for help with building a PC, he told me the price range and what he wanted it for, and in like 10 minutes I found him all the parts for cheap prices. Say you want to spend $800, RAM and Motherboards are all pretty standard, GPU and CPU are the only parts that take a bit of research. You find out within your price range, and check a hardware site or two to see how it performs on games you may want to get.

Putting the parts themselves together is essentially lego, back in highschool I've seen 14 year old girls being walked through it, everything just clips together.

Agreed WASDIE, no dispute there.

From a discussion of what is a 'generation' however the consoles are literally locked into ~5 year cycles whereas PC constantly evolves.

ehussein1379

Yet bout 80% of the time, the PC is essentially locked to current trends aswell despite its constantly advancing hardware is it not? sure PC evolves and things become more powerful bout twice a year in terms of products, but the developers really need to cater to the lower end aging hardware aswell that is still capable?

Sure you can fire the most expensive parts or cry the PC's evolving arguement but essentially the PC's locked to these generations leaps aswell in many a way whether it be multiplats or various other things like consumers unwilling to update their computers every couple of years to be relevant etc.A lot of PC games are able to be played by a modest setup from a store is it not? so wouldnt PC gamers inherently hinder themselves sometimes by catering to the denominators aswell?

Its an easy thing to pick at consoles for their weak hardware but developers need to think bout much more than Johnny console.Trust me there are PC gamers out there who get by just enjoying the game on low-med.

What I've been saying actually means a lot. The simple fact is both the PC and the consoles are needed for gaming. Without the PC we wouldn't see the advances in graphics, gameplay, or anything that we do. Indie developers are always trying new things on the PC that they just can't do on the consoles and tech is always first advanced on the PC where the R&D costs and risk is a fraction of that of a console. Consoles are needed to keep gaming alive and growing. Do you think gaming would have ever become mainstream if it would have stayed exclusivly on the PC? Hell no, it would still have that "gaming nerd" stigma attatched to it and would have never grown to be the size of it today.

All of you console gamers have the PC to thank for your new tech and all of you PC gamers have the consoles to thank for making gaming as popular and profitable as it is today.

The consoles generations allow gaming to grow horizontally with bigger fanbases, more games in each genre, and all of that while PC allows gaming to advance vertically with new tech and new ideas.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="harshv82"]

That has a disadvantage as well. You're forgetting the fact that developers would have no intention of developing new engine. Someone like Crytek would just build 1 engine in 5 years and be content with it. It does not help gaming in the way you imagine.

harshv82

that saves time which means cash, which essentially means a bigger budget for games :S also it means developers can earn back much in the same vein of epic and still constantly progress with newer incremenntal updates to said engine :S

Also engine's do NOT dictate gameplay either thats a devs duty hell mend a company if they want to be a one trick pony. Engines, they are only essentially frameworks for powering the game and making the game.

oh please, look at a UE this gen 3 is constantly advancing as an engine like 2 done before it.

CoD is fairly isolated to be absolutely blunt when it comes to this arguement, Uncharted 1 to 2 had improvements less screen tearing,looked a bit better and handled the game much better.To say dev's arent working on their tech and using CoD in your arguement's defo scraping the barrel in my honest opinion bout every console gamer has critisiced CoD for various reasons at some point for its little to no real improvement.

Lack of computer skills aside, PC games are generations ahead of consoles, which is the point of this thread :)

Even the JC2 pic I posted looks dramatically better than my PS3 version, which looks like a fuzzy bloom mess in comparison.

[QUOTE="harshv82"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Now that I got that out of the way, to be more with your point, consoles being locked into generations has it's advantages for game developers. They don't have to worry about the many different hardware configurations of the PC, they don't have to worry about grpahical libraries being updated, and they don't have to worry about things like SLI or Crossfire.

They get their dev kits and work with those. Sure they get new dev kits from time to time but it's nothing like a whole new version of DX or even a whole new line of AMD GPUs that do something different than the previous line. This allows the developers to really get to know what the consoles are capable of and work within those constraints to make a very good game. THey also don't have to spend millions and millions on new graphics engines all of the time to take advantage of new features.

Wasdie

That has a disadvantage as well. You're forgetting the fact that developers would have no intention of developing new engine. Someone like Crytek would just build 1 engine in 5 years and be content with it. It does not help gaming in the way you imagine.

Sure it has advantages and disadvantages. You also forget to add in the consumer element. People don't want to keep playing the same graphics for 5 years in a row. They demand better graphics. As long as the demand is there, people will make advances in graphics.

Like it or not, CoD has also increased it's graphic quality from CoD 4 - Black Ops. It's not as noticable as BFBC2 to BF3, but it's their. Also one of the biggest complaints I heard from CoD fans about Black Ops was it's graphics weren't that much improved over MW2.

Exactly what I said. So we can finally come to an agreement.

Do you think gaming would have ever become mainstream if it would have stayed exclusivly on the PC? Hell no, it would still have that "gaming nerd" stigma attatched to it and would have never grown to be the size of it today.

Wasdie

So we would be stuck with games like Planescape and Baldur's Gate instead of Dragon Age 2? What a terrible situation that would be.

Lack of computer skills aside, PC games are generations ahead of consoles, which is the point of this thread :)

ehussein1379

barely generations to be honest....maybe relatable to early next gen consoles but multiple gens you gotta be a bit of a mentalist to think that.

Dont know why people get so obsessed bout graphics on this board half the time to be honest get on with the game and bloody enjoy it :P.

[QUOTE="harshv82"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

that saves time which means cash, which essentially means a bigger budget for games :S also it means developers can earn back much in the same vein of epic and still constantly progress with newer incremenntal updates to said engine :S

Also engine's do NOT dictate gameplay either thats a devs duty hell mend a company if they want to be a one trick pony. Engines, they are only essentially frameworks for powering the game and making the game.

oh please, look at a UE this gen 3 is constantly advancing as an engine like 2 done before it.

CoD is fairly isolated to be absolutely blunt when it comes to this arguement, Uncharted 1 to 2 had improvements less screen tearing,looked a bit better and handled the game much better.To say dev's arent working on their tech and using CoD in your arguement's defo scraping the barrel in my honest opinion bout every console gamer has critisiced CoD for various reasons at some point for its little to no real improvement.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]devote hours in to researching the best parts/combinations. Then comes the physical aspect of building the PC....I don't particularly want to construct it myself - not just through laziness either.110million

This is basically a myth. A friend once asked for help with building a PC, he told me the price range and what he wanted it for, and in like 10 minutes I found him all the parts for cheap prices. Say you want to spend $800, RAM and Motherboards are all pretty standard, GPU and CPU are the only parts that take a bit of research. You find out within your price range, and check a hardware site or two to see how it performs on games you may want to get.

Putting the parts themselves together is essentially lego, back in highschool I've seen 14 year old girls being walked through it, everything just clips together.

Exactly.. I built a new box last week; snap in parts, install OS, install games... done.

Haven't touched it, other than gaming, since then.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Do you think gaming would have ever become mainstream if it would have stayed exclusivly on the PC? Hell no, it would still have that "gaming nerd" stigma attatched to it and would have never grown to be the size of it today.

110million

So we would be stuck with games like Planescape and Baldur's Gate instead of Dragon Age 2? What a terrible situation that would be.

Did you ever wonder why those games never got hugely popular outside of the tiny PC fanbase? Maybe it's becuase only a handful of gamers actually enjoys those kind of games.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Do you think gaming would have ever become mainstream if it would have stayed exclusivly on the PC? Hell no, it would still have that "gaming nerd" stigma attatched to it and would have never grown to be the size of it today.

110million

So we would be stuck with games like Planescape and Baldur's Gate instead of Dragon Age 2? What a terrible situation that would be.

The moniker of 'nerd' is a compliment at this point.

Bring back nerd games! Sick of the bro-beer-head-butt games, which I attribute as a function of consoles older hardware (and forced linear design).

[QUOTE="110million"]

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]devote hours in to researching the best parts/combinations. Then comes the physical aspect of building the PC....I don't particularly want to construct it myself - not just through laziness either.ehussein1379

This is basically a myth. A friend once asked for help with building a PC, he told me the price range and what he wanted it for, and in like 10 minutes I found him all the parts for cheap prices. Say you want to spend $800, RAM and Motherboards are all pretty standard, GPU and CPU are the only parts that take a bit of research. You find out within your price range, and check a hardware site or two to see how it performs on games you may want to get.

Putting the parts themselves together is essentially lego, back in highschool I've seen 14 year old girls being walked through it, everything just clips together.

Exactly.. I built a new box last week; snap in parts, install OS, install games... done.

Haven't touched it, other than gaming, since then.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="harshv82"] Engine has never dictated gameplay and I did not say that. Time spent on same engine is more $$ for developers and loss for gaming. Right now I can think of CoD which has seen little improvement still the devs/ publishers are milking millions of dollars. If what you think is true, then why not just go back to PS1 era or PS2? Never look for advancement.harshv82

oh please, look at a UE this gen 3 is constantly advancing as an engine like 2 done before it.

CoD is fairly isolated to be absolutely blunt when it comes to this arguement, Uncharted 1 to 2 had improvements less screen tearing,looked a bit better and handled the game much better.To say dev's arent working on their tech and using CoD in your arguement's defo scraping the barrel in my honest opinion bout every console gamer has critisiced CoD for various reasons at some point for its little to no real improvement.

But to say dev's arent improoving their tech regardless is silly... :S UE3 is a prime example of engine tech moving forwards.

Devs' are buisness's they dont care if they are holding PC's back, they care about money most of the time thats the way the cruel hard buisness world works.They go to whereever they can have the most sales and return over spending more on a port that might not sell that great either so just do a straight over cheap and cheerful port that can be patched later.

Companies dont care bout little Johhny nomad bawwing bout a game not pushing thier PC's.They only care bout cold hard cash.

[QUOTE="110million"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Do you think gaming would have ever become mainstream if it would have stayed exclusivly on the PC? Hell no, it would still have that "gaming nerd" stigma attatched to it and would have never grown to be the size of it today.

Wasdie

So we would be stuck with games like Planescape and Baldur's Gate instead of Dragon Age 2? What a terrible situation that would be.

Did you ever wonder why those games never got hugely popular outside of the tiny PC fanbase? Maybe it's becuase only a handful of gamers actually enjoys those kind of games.

That isn't necessarily true. Gaming is now mainstream, it wasn't then; I think you will see gaming drift back towards complexity in the coming years.

Did you ever wonder why those games never got hugely popular outside of the tiny PC fanbase? Maybe it's becuase only a handful of gamers actually enjoys those kind of games.

Wasdie

I'm okay with this. A lot of them released, meaning they were popular enough.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="110million"]

So we would be stuck with games like Planescape and Baldur's Gate instead of Dragon Age 2? What a terrible situation that would be.

ehussein1379

Did you ever wonder why those games never got hugely popular outside of the tiny PC fanbase? Maybe it's becuase only a handful of gamers actually enjoys those kind of games.

That isn't necessarily true. Gaming is now mainstream, it wasn't then; I think you will see gaming drift back towards complexity in the coming years.

I dont really think so apart from the simulators thats all that will really shift up a gear in terms of complexity.

[QUOTE="harshv82"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

oh please, look at a UE this gen 3 is constantly advancing as an engine like 2 done before it.

CoD is fairly isolated to be absolutely blunt when it comes to this arguement, Uncharted 1 to 2 had improvements less screen tearing,looked a bit better and handled the game much better.To say dev's arent working on their tech and using CoD in your arguement's defo scraping the barrel in my honest opinion bout every console gamer has critisiced CoD for various reasons at some point for its little to no real improvement.

razgriz_101

But to say dev's arent improoving their tech regardless is silly... :S UE3 is a prime example of engine tech moving forwards.

Devs' are buisness's they dont care if they are holding PC's back, they care about money most of the time thats the way the cruel hard buisness world works.They go to whereever they can have the most sales and return over spending more on a port that might not sell that great either so just do a straight over cheap and cheerful port that can be patched later.

Companies dont care bout little Johhny nomad bawwing bout a game not pushing thier PC's.They only care bout cold hard cash.

DICE seems to think both can work. BF3 is PC first, port to console.

In my estimation they have determined that PC is on a dramatic rise, and shoring up their bets to be seen as 'PC capable' developers.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="harshv82"] You missed the point again. You're talking about Uncharted 1 and 2, both of them are on consoles. I'm talking about PC being held back by consoles and devs catering to consoles for obvious reasons.ehussein1379

But to say dev's arent improoving their tech regardless is silly... :S UE3 is a prime example of engine tech moving forwards.

Devs' are buisness's they dont care if they are holding PC's back, they care about money most of the time thats the way the cruel hard buisness world works.They go to whereever they can have the most sales and return over spending more on a port that might not sell that great either so just do a straight over cheap and cheerful port that can be patched later.

Companies dont care bout little Johhny nomad bawwing bout a game not pushing thier PC's.They only care bout cold hard cash.

DICE seems to think both can work. BF3 is PC first, port to console.

In my estimation they have determined that PC is on a dramatic rise, and shoring up their bets to be seen as 'PC capable' developers.

Or at the same time they know where their sales are for the series......they are catering to their biggest demograph first.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Did you ever wonder why those games never got hugely popular outside of the tiny PC fanbase? Maybe it's becuase only a handful of gamers actually enjoys those kind of games.

razgriz_101

That isn't necessarily true. Gaming is now mainstream, it wasn't then; I think you will see gaming drift back towards complexity in the coming years.

I dont really think so apart from the simulators thats all that will really shift up a gear in terms of complexity.

How do you explain Demon Souls, or Witcher 2, or Mass Effect 2 GOTY? Those are inkling back towards complexity and away from the 'Gears mentality'.

In the 2005-2008 era games were definitely pigeon holed into Halo/Gears style shoot first, never ask questions. We seem to be coming out of that.